A district court judge has issued a preliminary injunction against Indiana's newest abortion law that would make it more difficult for minors to get an abortion without their parents' knowledge and consent.

Current Indiana law dictates that girls under the age of 18 must have parental consent to obtain an abortion, or they must petition the court to waive that consent. Senate Enrolled Act 404, signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb in April, would allow the judge in that case to decide whether or not it is in that minor’s best interest to tell her parents before the procedure

While the bill was criticized by some as another hurdle to a woman's right to choose, Holcomb said at the time that he saw the bill as a "parental rights issue and responsibility and common sense."

The bill was set to go into effect July 1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) in May, claiming the SEA 404 "imposes new burdens on a young woman's access to abortion and on her health care providers, in violation of often reaffirmed constitutional rights."

In her 51-page opinion, issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker wrote that state intervention in these cases would affect the pregnant minor's integrity more than her parents' authority.

"For this reason, the mature minor as the individual who bears the full consequences of the ultimate decision is entitled to an opportunity to proceed without state-mandated interference from her parents," Barker wrote. "Because SEA 404 offers no such opportunity, it places an unjustifiable burden on mature minors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment."

SEA 404 would also require a physician to obtain written consent, proof of ID and evidence of the relationship between the pregnant minor and their parent or legal guardian. The law would also make it a Level 6 felony for a person to falsely claim to be a minor’s parent or guardian in order to circumvent that consent.

Among other things, the law prohibits anyone outside of the girl's immediate family — extending to parents and step-parents, grandparents and step-grandparents and siblings and step-siblings — from "knowingly or intentionally aid(ing) or assist(ing) an unemancipated pregnant minor in obtaining an abortion without the consent required."

That would also prohibit health care providers like PPINK from providing information about abortion services in other states where parental-notification regulations are more lax.

Barker wrote in her opinion that, while the state may have interest in protecting the parent-child relationship and the well-being of minors, information regarding parental-involvement regulations in other states is easily researched, and the state had not shown how this particular statute would serve those interests.

"The State has not articulated the specific psychological harm to minors that is caused by the dissemination of truthful information concerning lawful abortion options, particularly given that such information is widely available to the public," Barker wrote in her opinion. "Nor has the State presented evidence that prohibiting the mere dissemination of accurate facts about abortion services that are lawfully available to minors outside of Indiana will correspondingly promote family integrity or facilitate family communication."

This is at least the second time this year that PPINK has claimed a victory over the state in regards to the enforcement of its abortion laws.

In April, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt blocked a law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours prior to undergoing an abortion procedure. PPINK challenged the law, which was signed in 2016 by then-governor and current Vice President Mike Pence, claiming it placed an undue burden on Indiana women seeking abortion services. Indiana’s Attorney General Curtis Hill filed to appeal Pratt's ruling in May.